Legal Opinion
Hildreth v. White
California Supreme Court
Decided March 31, 1885No. 8,654PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County, and from an order refusing a new trial. Action of ejectment. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The description of the premises in controversy was sufficient. (Whitney v. Buckman, 19 Cal. 300 ; Castro v. Gill, 5 Cal. 40; Stanley v. Green, 12 Cal. 148; People v. Leet, 23 Cal. 163.) The complaint was sufficient. (Coryell v. Cain, 16 Cal. 567.)
Myrick, J.
1. The first point presented is, that the complaint is radically defective- as to the description of the real estate sought to be recovered. The description contained in the complaint is as follows :
“ The following described real estate, situate in Mendocino County, State of California, and more particularly described as follows: Certain…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Coryell v. CainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Stanley v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- People v. LeetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Castro v. GillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- Whitney & Woods v. BuckmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by3 opinions
- Griffith v. HanfordOregon Supreme Court · 1942
- Veronda & Recoletto v. DowdyArizona Supreme Court · 1910
- Barrett v. CraryDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1912